Connect us       New User?     Subscribe Now
Confirm your Email ID for Updates
15.02.2013 - Voice of CA Presents - Updates
Monday, February 18, 2013

 I.  Today's Headlines:

  1. Budget 2013: Realtors seek tax breaks, UPA pitches for housing for the poor  (Click for detail)
  2. GST panel to frame model GST law; 3 comms to address issues  (Click for detail)
  3. IT Notification No. 2 - Protocol for amending the DTAA between India and Netherlands  (Click for detail)
  4. IT Notification No. 5 - Jurisdiction of Chief Commissioners of Income Tax Chennai (Click for detail)
  5. IT Notification No. 10 - The Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited  (Click for detail)
  6. RBI/2012-13/415 - Gold Deposit Scheme  (Click for detail)


II.  Useful Contrubitions:

[Contribution by CA Bimal Jain Ji and contributor is available at] 

1.  An Article - "Mere non-payment of duties is not collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts"

(Click here for detail)  


  III.  Useful Case Laws: 

1.   Khanna and Annadhanam Vs. CIT, ITA No. 1286/2008, Judgment delivered on: 29.01.2013, High Court of Delhi

“Whether the amount received by the appellant from DTTI in terms of release agreement with DTTI is capital receipt or revenue receipt?"

Facts of the case:

The understanding between the assessee-firm and the chartered accountants firm in Calcutta was limited to the work in Delhi and surrounding areas only. In 1996, it transpired that DHS wanted another firm of chartered accountants by name C.C. Chokshi & Co., of Bombay to represent its work in India. Accordingly an agreement was entered into on 14.11.1996 which was called a release agreement, under which the assessee firm was to no longer represent DHS in India; thereafter DHS would not refer any work to the assessee-firm. In consideration of the termination of the services of the assessee-firm, a compensation of US$ 325000 amounting to Indian `1,15,70,000/- was paid by DHS to the assessee-firm.


In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261, It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital receipt.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, IT Appeal No. 377 (HYD.) of 2009 and 487 & 686 (HYD.) of 2010, Date of Order: 31.10.2012,  ITAT- Hyderabad

Bad debt written off not allowable if weren’t considered while computing income of earlier years

As submitted by the DR if it is an expenditure incurred in respect of its business, it should have been claimed during the relevant assessment year and if it is a debt it should have been advanced in respect of trade or business of the assessee and it should have gone to computation of income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount of such debt or part thereof is written off or of an earlier previous year or represents money lent in ordinary course of business. In the present case the assessee is not able to lead any evidence how it has gone into computation of income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration or in any other assessment year. Being so, we are of the opinion that findings of the lower authorities in disallowing the claim of the assessee are justified. We confirm the order of the CIT (A).

(Please click here for judgment)  


IV.  Tender Info.:

  1. Chartered Accountants for Annual Audit
    Pushpa Gujral Science city
    Kapurthala - Punjab
    (Click for detail)



 Golden Rules:

"When we get little we want more,
when we get more, we desire even more,
but when we lose it, we realize little was enough"


  Thanks & Regards


Voice of CA    




« Back
Online Poll
Connect Us       New User?     Subscribe Now